In some respects, the trial court’s specification of reasons for granting a new trial, subject to a remittitur, for excessive damages was adequate.  For example, the trial court found that the jury had awarded duplicative damages for two different causes of action.  However, the appellate court held the reason was not supported by the record which showed there was substantial evidence of separate harm on the two claims and the jury had been instructed not to award duplicative damages.  In some other respects, the specification of reasons was inadequate in not sufficiently disclosed the basis on which the trial court had found other aspects of the damage award inadequate.